Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Strip searches for any reason?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 1
Strip searches for any reason?Page 1 of 2    (1, 2)
Today the supreme court ruled that anyone arrested can be strip searched for any reason...or no reason at all, before being placed in jail



Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Offense

By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: April 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.



Guess whom voted each way.

The Supreme Court case arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed an outstanding warrant based on an unpaid fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)

Mr. Florence was held for a week in jails in two counties, and he was strip-searched twice. There is some dispute about the details but general agreement that he was made to stand naked in front of a guard who required him to move intimate parts of his body. The guards did not touch him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html



Is this another stellar piece of supreme court justice?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 2
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/2/2012 6:14:54 PM
I understand the need to keep prisons and jails safe...I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around a guy, as a passanger in his own car, getting hauled in over a 7 year old ticket-that he paid the fine...being strip searched...lift your jewels...then after a week gets transfered to another jail where he's searched again...lift your jewels...now bend over and cough.....and the guy paid the fine...
 NonamousDog
Joined: 4/20/2011
Msg: 3
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/2/2012 6:24:21 PM
Well,

They could have shot his wife in the head like they did Vicky Weaver. Oh wait, that was the ATF. They can do that and get away with it.
 Sniper308
Joined: 10/21/2004
Msg: 4
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/2/2012 8:48:41 PM

They could have shot his wife in the head like they did Vicky Weaver. Oh wait, that was the ATF. They can do that and get away with it.


Vicki Weaver was killed by Lon Horiuchi, an FBI sniper.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/2/2012 9:46:43 PM

Is this another stellar piece of supreme court justice?


Oh just admit it. You are preparing your tirade against the American system especially the Supreme Court in case Obama care gets shot down.

This seems reasonable for the question asked. The question asked was not the reasonableness of why the guy was arrested. it was for being processed in a jail where he was to be held with other prisoners.

What else do you expect them to do... Build more jails for potential criminals?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/2/2012 10:41:29 PM

But Kennedy focused on the fact that Florence was held with other inmates in the general population. In concurring opinions, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said the decision left open the possibility of an exception to the rule and might not apply to someone held apart from other inmates.


That shouldn't need explaining. Open to exceptions. Because they were held with general population.

No, I'm not okay with being arrested for minor traffic offenses but this has nothing to do with that at all. Nothing. Different topic. This is being arrested for any reason and being subject to strip search. And the rule now says it is not an invasion of privacy if the person is going to be held in general population and it says exceptions are allowed.

Are you going to be ok when you are arrested for smoking a cigarette
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/11/nyregion/police-arrest-smokers-in-subways-and-lawyers-object.html

Oh, you don't smoke.. who cares about them.

Can't even have a fake one
http://news.yahoo.com/man-arrested-using-electronic-cigarette-plane-statement-issued-230210943.html

There are a ton of bad laws forced in by people trying to make it a better world for everyone and this is the treatment that those rules get people. All this rule does is try to deal with the situation that has already been caused. The alternative is what... low level gangs can get thrown in for minor infractions on purpose and since it is now a loophole to bypass the search it is just another way to bring stuff in. It may have never been done before but guess what... if they upheld it and make it a right it would then be a known loop hole.

How would you deal with that?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 7
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/3/2012 4:31:23 AM
Years ago, I used to drive to Vermont to go day skiing...well, I always tried to make the 3 hour rie shorter, and would get speeding tickets. Apparently, I had accumulated enough points to have my driving privilages revoked in the state....thing is they sent notification to an address I had long since left, so I never recieved notification....anyway, the new ski season had started and I was up sking for the day and was on my way home when I was pulled over....the trooper told me he was going to cut me a break and issue me a ticket because he, by rights, could take me to jail for driving while my license was revoked in their state....then again, I am white.

I don't know whether Mr Florence was taken to prison or held in jail...and I do understand the need to protect even those in jail....

I'm just thinking that the whole thing sounds so unfair for Mr Florence...having paid his fine, he's arrested 7 years later, strip searched twice, once with a cavity search...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/3/2012 10:06:03 AM

You can always go to the website of the US Supreme Court and read the latest decisions as well as other information.

In Florence, I liked Justice Breyer's dissent.


I find it much more disturbing that the following is not considered degrading to human rights to be jailed for.


They include individualsdetained for such infractions as driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use aturn signal, or riding a bicycle without an audible bell.Brief for Petitioner 11, 25; see also Mary Beth G., supra, at 1267, n. 2 (considering strip search of a person arrested for having outstanding parking tickets and a person arrestedfor making an improper left turn); Jones v. Edwards, 770
F. 2d 739, 741 (CA8 1985) (same for violation of dog leashlaw). They include persons who perhaps should neverhave been placed in the general jail population in the first place.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/3/2012 10:30:26 AM
Maybe they are trying to get the population to get used to violations of dignity and at the same time give their peons a thrill before they start their mass arrests?
Just maybe human rights are not a right anymore?
I do wonder what it's going to take before the public stands up against these draconian measure's.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/3/2012 10:47:11 AM

This was a 5-4 decision. You don't have a problem with that? I certainly do. A Supreme Court Decision should never be anything other than 9-0, 9-1 and perhaps a 9-2 every once a decade.


It's the 4-4 decisions I have a problem with. Those 9-1 and 9-2 decisions take a little doing to set up. You know, having to arrange for the guest justice(s), and all that. Probably why you don't see them more often.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/3/2012 9:40:12 PM
Yes, that's what the 4th Amendment says. In this case, the question seemed to be whether this was an unreasonable search.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 12
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 9:11:56 AM
It's always the same, predictable 5 justices, isn't it? With each ruling, the predictable agenda behind their reasoning becomes more apparent: if it's a case of the state vs. an individual citizen, these 5 rule in favor of the state; if it's a case of a corporation vs. an individual citizen, they rule in favor of the corporation; if it's the state vs. a corporation, they rule in favor of the corporation. Just those 5.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 9:38:01 AM

That is because they are owned by the wealthy--just like a pet dog. They make their rulings like a mutt might lick it's master's feet, hoping for a scratch under the chin, or a doggie treat.


????? How is that not inflamatory, hateful, derogitory and offensive? You are not going to agree with all of their rulings but how does that make them criminals.

It isn't even accurate
http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

Pacific Operators Offshore v. Valladolid
At Issue: Does the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which provides worker’s compensation for outer continental shelf workers, cover laborers who are injured on land?

Summary: Pacific Operators employee Juan Valladolid worked most of his time on an offshore drilling platform on the intercontinental shelf, but was killed in a forklift accident a company facility on shore. An administrative law judge denied the claim by his family, a benefits review board affirmed, and the 9th Circuit denied in part and affirmed in part. The company appealed.

Argue Date: Oct 11, 2011Decision Date: Jan 11, 2012The Decision: 9-0, in favor of Valladolid




Missouri v. Frye (linked with Lafler v. Cooper)
At Issue: Can a defendant who pleads guilty at a jury trial later claim that his lawyer was inept for failing to tell him of a plea bargain offer?

Summary: Prosecutors offered, then withdrew a plea bargain when Galin Frye was charged on separate occasions of driving with a revoked license. Frye’s lawyer never told him of the offer, and he ultimately pleaded guilty. Post conviction, Frye filed a complaint alleging ineffective counsel. The court upheld Frye’s conviction, but the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated his guilty plea and remanded the case.

Argue Date: Oct 31, 2011Decision Date: Mar 21, 2012The Decision: 5-4, in favor of Frye



Perry v. Perez (consolidated with Perry v. Davis)
At issue: Should SCOTUS block court-drawn Texas election maps that favor minority representation in the 2012 congressional and state legislative races?

Summary: To take advantage of four new Congressional seats for Texas, the Republican-controlled legislature drew up a map expected to favor the GOP. Civil rights groups sued to block the plan, prompting a Texas district court to create an interim map to better represent Hispanics. Governor Rick Perry and other officials are seeking to block the interim map. The Court consolidated three similar cases.

Argue Date: Jan 9, 2012Decision Date: Jan 20, 2012The Decision: 9-0, per curiam ruling
 want to travel
Joined: 7/29/2006
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 9:53:48 AM
Really, Americans are just now begging to catch up with the rest of the world
here in Canada, the police have pretty much always had that right, as did police forces throwout the west
the goal is to be rid of civil rights
Old Bush announced it, this is the 'new world order', he was talking about!
wars for no reason at all, based on lies, WOMD's (Irak),.... and coming soon Iran, cause the've got nuke, don't ya know.... like we have not heard that one before!
since the 80's local police have been learning military tactics, all one has to do is go to ANY demo, and you will not see police but para military units
what I find interesting, is that the war on is a bust, the war on poverty is a bust, education keeps going down hill, and so on....
we need to change the system
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 15
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 10:11:40 AM
I really should alter my previous post to say that these 5 justices rule in favor of the state when it's the state vs. an individual being detained.

It isn't even accurate

Yes, of course, it is not COMPLETELY true-- keeping up appearances is important when one has a high profile status.

I should make the context of my post more clear: I mean the controversial cases where the decision is split 5-4, and the 5 are the Republican appointees. To Justice Kennedy's credit, he is the less predictable one, but the other 4 (and you know the ones I mean) are quite dependable with the borderline decisions.

Missouri vs. Frye has a 5-4 ruling, yes, but look who the dissenting 4 are, and you will see that it actually bolsters my point about them with Kennedy as the exception.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 10:41:01 AM
I should make the context of my post more clear: I mean the controversial cases where the decision is split 5-4, and the 5 are the Republican appointees.


Uh well that makes the 4 democrat appointees that also are predictable in their decisions. And doesn't that make sense and pretty much almost entirely reflects the country?

Doesn't it make sense that 'the controversial decisions' are split along the same lines that make the issue controversial? Wouldn't it be more disturbing if controversial issues were decided 9/0? They are controversial because they are controversial that means regardless of the decision it will be seen as controversial. That in no way points to or even implies evil intent. It reflects reality.


At Issue: Can a defendant who pleads guilty at a jury trial later claim that his lawyer was inept for failing to tell him of a plea bargain offer

just look at the case issue you highlighted to prove your point. Just from the subject "at issue" without reading any details my initial response is FU you plead guilty at a friggen trial. Now you’re going to come back and say you didn't mean it... A trial is not a 30 second event and takes minimum weeks to prepare and hours to get through and jury selection then evidence and presentations. WTH you weren’t ready? You haven't seen enough TV to know that plea bargains exist? So, it surprises me that someone could look at it and interprets differently which is just a sign of the differing world views and not malfeasance.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 17
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 10:57:41 AM

Uh well that makes the 4 democrat appointees that also are predictable in their decisions.

Yes, it does. But usually when someone is dismissed as predictable, it is not to show praise. "Steve the fireman saved another baby from a burning building? He is sooo predictable that way!"

The other "predictable" 4 do not show the pro-corporate/anti little guy tendencies of the 4 I was expressing disappointment in, which is what I was obviously (I had hoped) implying.

just look at the case issue you highlighted to prove your point.

Nice try at the ole switcharoo there, but if you look back, you will see that it was one of the cases you highlighted to prove your point. I addressed it merely to show that it did not.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 11:31:07 AM

Nice try at the ole switcharoo there, but if you look back, you will see that it was one of the cases you highlighted to prove your point. I addressed it merely to show that it did not


I am not 'trying' anything. Yes I listed several cases and you pointed to that one for the 'predictable' split and I attempted to illustrate how that split happens and that it isn't a show of corruption but a natural occurrence from the makeup of the country.

I don't want liberals or democrats abolished or run out of town. We need them for the balance. Something that isn't valued in reverse apparently. I don't want our system of government overturned and abolished. It is a controversial system at best and was always designed to be that way and it works as long as no one is able to get too much power. 1 vote to a majority is not too much power. States’ rights need to be represented as well as individual and federal. It is very difficult to represent all of those rights without bias in a single world view so there are 9 and there are 9 so there can never be a tie and they are appointed for life because our political leanings of government changes every four years and without that long standing ability through the law we would be in utter chaos.
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 11:49:27 AM
BalderDog2 said:


This was a 5-4 decision. You don't have a problem with that? I certainly do. ...When you see a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines, then you have judges who are making rulings based on their political beliefs, or judges who have been corrupted by the influence of the very rich.

People need to pay attention to this.



flyguy51 said:


It's always the same, predictable 5 justices, isn't it? With each ruling, the predictable agenda behind their reasoning becomes more apparent: if it's a case of the state vs. an individual citizen, these 5 rule in favor of the state; if it's a case of a corporation vs. an individual citizen, they rule in favor of the corporation; if it's the state vs. a corporation, they rule in favor of the corporation. Just those 5.


Yeah, those five conservative jerks. They're doing everything they can to take rights away from the people - why can't they just be like the Obama, and fight for our rights? Why can't they... What? He did what? Ooops - never mind.



The Obama administration is siding with the prisons in the case and urging the court to allow a blanket policy for all inmates set to enter the general prison population.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/supreme-court-struggles-with-strip-searches/




What makes the Obama DOJ’s position in favor of this broad strip-search authority particularly remarkable is that federal prisons do not even have this policy. As The New York Times‘ Adam Liptak explained, “the procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures.”

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/


Looks like the Obama is on the same side as the Gang of Five, as usual. Pull your heads out, Obots.

RPL
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 20
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 12:22:28 PM
I attempted to illustrate how that split happens and that it isn't a show of corruption but a natural occurrence from the makeup of the country.

Aries, I was never making accusations of corruption. I was just pointing out the disappointing regularity in which 5 of the same justices rule on cases that have disturbing ramifications on us and our fellow citizens. Now, if you want to bat for those 4-5 justices, why not do it on the actual topic of this thread?

RPL, thanks for the pertinent info. The only ones who have claimed that the Obama admin is in diametric opposition to all right wing platforms are the right wingers. However, I don't thank you for the unwarranted chastisement and namecalling.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 12:51:38 PM


Aries, I was never making accusations of corruption. I was just pointing out the disappointing regularity in which 5 of the same justices rule on cases that have disturbing ramifications on us and our fellow citizens. Now, if you want to bat for those 4-5 justices, why not do it on the actual topic of this thread?


I already did. I don't support why the guy was arrested but support the reasoning for searches for those going into general population. The reasoning makes sense. The better option would be for each county / state to apply exceptions but once a position is covered it gets flattened out accross the entire population, which isn't good, even though exceptions are allowed most will likely choose to not have them. It's easier on the paper work.

I amy have associated with another post that seems to indicate that the supreme court are criminals and should be tried for crimes against humanity. So... sorry about that.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 1:20:39 PM

Yes, they are treasonous criminals in my opinion.


You also said you think the Court's vote should almost always be unanimous--except, of course, for a 9-1 or 9-2 vote every now and then.


Yes, of course, it is not COMPLETELY true-- keeping up appearances is important when one has a high profile status.


It's not even anywhere close to being true. A cynical view of a hopelessly politicized Court has become popular since Gore v. Bush. And it's nonsense. Most people who have taken it up have never even glanced at that decision. Same goes for Citizens United, the decision leftists love to cite as proof the so-called conservatives on the Court are in the tank for evil, greedy corporations. I could just as easily say it shows the four so-called liberals on the Court share the hostility of most liberals toward First Amendment protected speech--and it would make just as little sense.


but the other 4 (and you know the ones I mean) are quite dependable with the borderline decisions.


When someone who thoroughly understands the constitutional issues involved accuses one or more of the justices of making an unprincipled decision in a case, and can give detailed reasons for thinking that, it means something. That's sometimes just what the dissenters do in their opinions, or what analysts do in critical law review articles. Some of us think uninformed opinions about this or that justice being a sellout may not mean quite so much.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Strip searches for any reason?